Veterans Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much, sir, for your statement.

Now we are going to recess for another short time to set up our Department of Veterans Affairs people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll call the meeting back to order, please.

Next we have a statement from the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have Keith Hillier, assistant deputy minister, service delivery, and Bernard Butler, director general, policy and research. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Butler.

[Bernard Butler, Director General, Policy and Research, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act.

This fall the minister announced four changes to the new Veterans Charter programming. The first change was to improve the earnings loss benefit. As has been noted, this only requires a regulatory change, so it's not technically a part of the bill. That benefit, which replaces lost income for veterans undergoing rehabilitation, or who cannot be suitably and gainfully employed, will be increased to ensure a minimum annual pre-tax income of $40,000. So this is essentially an enhancement proposed for the earnings loss benefit.

The other three changes are a part of this bill, which amends the new Veterans Charter and the older Pension Act. These changes will, firstly, increase access to the permanent impairment allowance in the new Veterans Charter and the exceptional incapacity allowance under the old Pension Act to ensure that seriously disabled or injured veterans have access to either one of these benefits—so either access to the permanent impairment allowance under the new Veterans Charter or access to the exceptional incapacity allowance under the Pension Act.

These changes will also provide a supplement of $1,000 per month to veterans in receipt of the permanent impairment allowance who cannot be suitably and gainfully employed.

Finally, it will provide the payment options for the disability award. The bill, as you are aware, will also be used to make minor housekeeping changes.

We listened with interest to debate at the second reading. I'd like first to take this opportunity to thank many of you for your words of support in the House. I would also like to address some of the concerns you have raised.

Many of you wondered why we did not increase the lump-sum payments. The concern stakeholders brought to us was a lack of a monthly income for certain veterans. Increasing the lump sum by itself would not fix that. However, increasing support provided through our financial support programs would. As such, we proposed increasing the earnings loss benefit and the permanent impairment allowance. The new Veterans Charter is a more complete approach to helping those injured in the line of duty and helping their families. It not only provides for lump-sum disability awards for pain and suffering, but it also provides monthly financial support when needed, such as earnings loss benefit, permanent impairment allowance, and the Canadian Forces income supplement, as well as case management, rehabilitation, and support for families.

We also found that many veterans—some 69% when surveyed—were satisfied with their lump-sum payments. When we surveyed veterans who had received a disability award, we found that 85% thought their lump sum was well used: 71% had invested at least a portion of that amount; some paid down a debt or put money in a savings account. That said, as some of you noted in debate, we also found that 31% weren't satisfied. As the minister has noted, 31% is enough to cause us to rethink the method of payment. So we are now, through this bill, proposing a choice of payment options.

You also asked why it took so long to bring forward changes to the charter. It's easy to forget that this is a new program with an innovative design and no experiential history upon which to build. Five years in the life of a program is but one cycle. In April we only completed, really, that first cycle. In spite of excellent program design and robust forecasts, the living charter is subject to what happens out in the real world, and we needed to collect that data and evidence to make full study prior to making changes.

In debate, Ms. Duncan noted some of the other changes the Legion would have liked to have seen. Regarding those specific to the legislation, I have addressed the issue of the disability awards, but the other items raised were different options for increasing the earnings loss benefit, providing it for life, and basing it on projected career earnings.

On this point, Mr. Chair, when designing these programs we take a whole-of-government approach and strive to keep our benefits similar to what the Department of National Defence and other similar federal programs provide. For example, National Defence provides 75% of salary in their income replacement programs. So consistency between what is received by those in service and those who exit service is important.

Mr. Stoffer, you had raised some specific concerns on the bill in debate that I'd be happy to speak to further in questions, if still required, but I did want to touch on the issue of the use of “may” as opposed to “shall” in our legislation. A convention of legislative drafting has evolved such that the word “may” is used and interpreted as “shall” in many instances. So in the new Veterans Charter and also in these amendments being brought forward in Bill C-55, when a veteran applies for and meets the eligibility criteria to qualify for a benefit, the word “may” is simply interpreted as the mandatory “shall”. The minister can do nothing other than grant the benefit and has no discretionary authority to refuse the application when the eligibility criteria have been met.

Mr. Chair, those are simply some observations we would make. We thank you for this time to address the committee, and we are here to assist you in your deliberation and certainly to answer any further questions you may have.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Great. Thank you.

In response to Mr. Lévesque, there are questions allowed as we go clause by clause. There are just no questions after the statement. Thank you.

We will--

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, can we not ask questions of the witnesses before we go into clause-by-clause? I thought it was normal practice. The department is here. You ask any questions and then...that's the normal practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

If we're going to do that, we have to keep the questions very short. I can allow one question per party, if you want.

One question. Try to keep it to two minutes, if you can, please.

Mr. Lamoureux, go ahead, please.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I wanted to get into the area of the lump sum. It was an area of great discussion and concern. As one of the vets was telling me on the side after the committee rose for a few minutes, if you give a large sum of money to someone who has just come back from Afghanistan after losing a couple of limbs, chances are they might look at that dollar figure and see the value in receiving that, as opposed to the real benefits of being able to use that in future years.

Is this not a concern of the department, that it might be the case that you're providing a fairly significant carrot for a lot of people by providing choice and this might become a problem in the future?

[Bernard Butler]

I think that if there's a risk, it obviously would be a concern, but I can tell you that with the lump-sum benefit, there are a number of considerations that I think you should address. First of all, we do offer financial counselling. It's part of the package. If there's an individual who may be at risk, that person is certainly encouraged through our district office staff to seek that financial counselling, to get support if they require help in decision-making. What this bill does, however, is it does afford that individual the opportunity to make a choice, and the choice will be obviously to either accept the full amount as a lump sum or as a combination of a lump sum and a periodic payment, or strictly as an annualized periodic payment over whatever period of time that individual chooses to make.

One of our concerns, and a concern I think the committee should consider, is that there is always a fundamental issue of choice and self-determination, and there seems to be some concern that individuals, because they come back from Afghanistan, may not have the mental wherewithal to make decisions around how they're going to spend their money. This is a concern in the sense that we send troops to Afghanistan, we send troops all around the world, to engage in very difficult actions on behalf of the Government of Canada, and yet the response from some quarters is that, yes, that's great, and you were able to do that, but you're not able to manage some money that you're going to get because you have been injured.

There are very difficult issues in all of this around self-determination, freedom of choice, competency, and capacity to manage decisions around financial spending. From a departmental point of view, yes, we are concerned. We have put processes in place to ensure that for any individual we're working with, if there is an identified risk, they are counselled, they receive the support they need. And, again, the programming does afford that opportunity to pay $500 towards financial counselling to help individuals with decisions around investment strategies or otherwise with their funds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We've already gone over on our time.

We'll go to Mr. Lévesque, please.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to ask a question.

I am concerned about two things here...

Mr. Chair, there appears to be a problem with the reception I'm getting through my earpiece.

Are you setting the clock back to zero?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll start the clock again.

[Bernard Butler]

It wasn't just a pretext.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Take a young soldier of 24 or 25 who returns from the front and has lost both of his legs. When he is released from hospital, he attempts suicide the first chance he gets. Will a team of CF doctors be the ones called upon to evaluate his state of mind, or will he be entitled to the opinion of an independent committee? Will the young solider, or his family, be entitled to select the counselling services they want or again, will the counselling automatically be provided by the CF?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The questions were to be about the bill, Mr. Chair. We're here to deal with the bill. We're not here to go back to the discussion about the recommendations made in this bill.

Either go clause by clause, or keep your questions to the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Could you keep the questions to the bill?

Is this related to the bill?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

As you know, I'm not a regular member of the committee. I was curious as to whether any of the bill's provisions concerned these committees. My question has to do with the application of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I know that.

Give a short answer, sir.

[Bernard Butler]

This bill speaks to enhancements to the new Veterans Charter programming. It's targeted to the financial benefits payable under the bill. There's nothing in Bill C-55 that would speak to those issues you're raising, Monsieur, in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Are there no more questions on the other side?

We'll move on, then, to clause-by-clause. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5—Refusal to Provide Services)

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have some questions on the payouts. As we're going through the clauses, I don't want us to just pass it so quickly that I don't get a response, because I do have some questions related to that.

Can you just help me by making sure that we don't pass through that part?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We're on clause-by-clause. If you want to make amendments, make amendments. But we're not here for discussion of the bill. We're here to deal with clause-by-clause. If there are amendments to come forward, then so be it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, I have questions I would like to put forward. If we want to go to clause-by-clause, and I can seek clarification on each clause, we can do that if you like. It's not a waste a time. Due diligence dictates that you review the legislation. We haven't had this legislation in our hands for weeks; we've just recently been provided the legislation. As we've tried to go through it, we've been very patient in terms of getting to this point. I think it's reasonable to ask questions.

I'm still somewhat new to this process. I have some concerns with regard to the payouts, and I think, as a courtesy, it would be appropriate to allow me to ask some questions in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

This is in response. This is the final reading of the bill. The bill has been debated in the House. There have been questions asked in the House. There have been answers given.

Mr. Lamoureux, because you're a new member, we're not going to go back and start over at the beginning of Bill C-55. We are right now on clause-by-clause.

Mr. Lévesque.